Completely agree. We are only hearing one side.
The whole debate played out in the media, on the TV debates and by UKIP is also so narrowly focused. It has focused on trade, powers, migration and economic benefits/costs but hasn't focused on the other aspects of the European project. Why has no one focused on the recent success by the EU and net neutrality for instance? http://gigaom.com/2014/04/03/european-parliament-passes-strong-net-neutrality-law-along-with-major-roaming-reforms/ Its a success which is so tangible to EU citizens, people use the internet and their mobiles on the continent all the time.
The idea that UKIP push that if you are anti-EU you are unpatriotic I also find hard to stomach.

Professor Nutt, firstly thank you for your contribution to the debate and scientific research in this area. Your dismissal was disappointing but at least showed the public that experts were willing to break certain taboos in relation to drug policy.
A few questions:

What in your opinion is one of the more interesting affects of drugs on the brain that you have uncovered, i.e something perhaps completely harmless but perhaps mildly amusing?

I am sure the information is publicly available, but do you have limits placed on your research because of the ban on medical testing/research on certain drugs?

I know you focus more on the 'science' of drugs, but what in your opinion is the best form of harm reduction that the UK government can adopt in relation to heroin addicts?

Is any chance of a rational debate on drug policy reform lost entirely when a Home secretary goest against a unanimous decision of a cross party advisory council, which sought to help her make her decision, and goes ahead with a ban on Khat anyway.

I think it's really bad when people use the cost saving argument to advocate capital punishment. You can't put a financial value on life (and a very low one at that) and justify condemning prisoners to death to save the taxpayer some money.

I couldn't agree more. In Britain I think people have a focus on punishment and retribution which is perceived as just. It's all about paying for their crime. Whilst punishment is necessary and important, taking this simplistic view means that there isn't enough focus on preventing criminals from reoffending. In my view you need to help them to have a stake in society when they are out of prison. If you view some of the criminals as victims of the system, it goes a long way to understanding why prisoners re-offend. They are stuck in a vicious cycle. I can understand why this might seem like quite an extreme view, but I think that on the whole it is true. Prison should be seen as a place where wrongdoers receive their punishment, but also a place where those that are paying for their crime can be prepared to become citizens again. It's no use making people serve their time without rehabilitation to prevent people reoffending.

For me, just like question over the Britain's EU membership, the death penalty is an issue which would be voted on emotionally. People react strongest to emotional issues and here in the UK, the greatest public participation in anything, that I can think of, is in programmes like the X factor, a programme that has a focus on emotional stories and personal journeys. I also think it the question of capital punishment is too complex an issue to be decided in a referendum.

I really disliked his relaxed attitude towards the whole thing. Especially at the end when he reflected, unfazed, sitting on a famous Floridian electric chair. He was probably imagining it action or rather justice in action.

I really like the Norwegian system. Here is a good article on an example of one of Noway's highest security prisons with a 16% reoffending rate, the lowest in Europe. The Guardian, also have a good article on another Norwegian prison. I think these two articles describe the Norwegian model or attitude quite well.